other sites might only see a 5~10% 'non-IE' impact at best. In those cases re-making a site/changing it for maximum browser capability doesn't make as much sense as some instructions for how FF users might get round the problem.
Of course, if the reason for the low presence of non-IE visitors is that it doesn't work right in those browsers, so those people look at the site once, then leave for a competitor, then the potential benefit of making the site more compatible is greater than the stats would imply.
As I understand it, IETab simply embeds Internet Explorer inside the Firefox window and allows the chrome to control it. As far as the website can tell, IETab is IE.
What's (somewhat) progressive about MovieLink isn't that they're allowing IETab... but that they're recommending it.
"the primary route of attack" on websites these days is cross-site scripting, sql injection, and insufficient paranoia by server-side processing. Disabling client-side processing would do nothing to prevent these things, and would only serve to cripple the usability of the web.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. Cross-site scripting does rely on client-side processing (you can inject it without CS, but the end user has to run it). But you're right about the other two. SQL injection and attacks via invalid server input don't even require a browser -- you could attack a vulnerable server with telnet if you wanted, no matter how safe the users' browsers are.
I've got two words for you, my friend. Virtual Machines.
Microsoft is even offering free images for Virtual PC, preloaded with IE6 and IE7. The annoying thing is that they're time limited, expiring in August. I think they're being entirely too optimistic about the upgrade rate, especially considering all the computers that can't upgrade to IE7 for technical or policy reasons.
They were there as a major developer of web applications. They've also worked closely with Mozilla (at one point they were employing several developers specifically to work on Firefox, and they might still be), and were there to talk about the future of webapps.
Blame the editors. I submitted a couple of links, including another article on ComputerWorld which went into the "browser war" comments in a bit more detail:
Instead of trying to trump one another by adding features in point releases, [i.e. the classic browser war] the companies that developed these browsers are instead intent on advancing their use as platforms for a new generation of rich Internet applications and for tackling the hurdles that will come along with that shift in strategy, the panel said.
(For the record, I found the story via Opera Watch)
All true, but the fact that people wait until the deadline is not news.
This is also why I try never to go anywhere near the post office on April 12-15 (or 16, on years like this one). With very few exceptions, whatever it is can wait until the crowds of "postmarked on April 15" tax filers people are done.
Not unlike Quicktime and iTunes. Apple ported Quicktime to Windows to ensure dominance over video players. It didn't work, but they did the same with iTunes when it became clear that there was a market for iPods among Windows users. However, you'll note that after a decade, we still have no official Quicktime for Linux. And Apple shows no signs of interest in porting iTunes to Linux either.
(Personally, I can take or leave iTunes itself, but it would be nice to have a Linux client which could access iTunes collections over the network. Even if it can only access non-DRMed files, most of what we have is just ripped from our CD collection. I really don't feel like ripping them all again, or exporting the entire collection and trying to keep the copy in sync.)
Anonymous user stats are always going to be an estimate. Cookies aren't reliable, because people clear them. IP addresses aren't reliable, because some are dynamically generated, some are shared, and people move around.
You can only really know how many users you have if (a) they're registered and (b) they visit the site while logged in. (And even then, people could be sharing accounts -- bugmenot, anyone?)
Personally, I don't think this is a problem, as long as you're willing to look at the estimates for what they are and not treat them as if they were precise.
Hmm... how long before someone claims that Firefox's/Opera's/Safari's stats are inflated because they make it easier to wipe cookies than IE?
Technically, he could have been out a lot quicker had his parents hired a lawyer and bailed him out, but the parents probably believe the police and thought he did it too.
Not according to this article. They did have a lawyer, who managed to get him released to their custody before charges were dropped. It's not clear why it took 12 days to do it, but they didn't believe the principal over their son.
Webb's parents, Linda and Budd Webb, arrived at the school and listened to the recorded bomb threat. Linda Webb told administrators it wasn't her son.
"They kept saying that it was his voice. They didn't even know him," she said.
After a state trooper arrived, Charlton told the teen he was being arrested, and the trooper read Webb his Miranda rights.
"I was in shock," Webb said.
The family's lawyer is quoted a number of times in the article as well.
I had the same opinion until retarded eBay ads started showing up everywhere. No, just because I'm browsing an article about "postfix bugs" doesn't mean I want to buy a "BUG COLLECTION GUIDE at eBay" or "POSTFIX FOR DUMMIES EBOOK at eBay", etc.
I was once looking for information on Nigerian scams, a.k.a. 419 scams, a.k.a. advance fee fraud scams. And, I kid you not, among the ads on the Google results page for "nigerian scam" was an ad that read:
Nigerian Scam
Looking for Nigerian Scam?
Find exactly what you want today
www.ebay.com
I found the same type of ad for "419 scam," then did some random searches, and at the time, eBay seemed to have picked up a whole bunch of two-word phrases.
Perhaps, but they make a big point early in the movie to explain it to some people who aren't entirely convinced.
There's a group of spectators at the dig site, Dr. Grant makes some remark about birds being related to the velociraptor skeleton they're looking at, and the spectators laugh. He then proceeds to point out all the similarities. It's right before the part where he scared the kid with his story about velociraptor hunting practices.
I rewatched it a few months ago, and found it interesting that some of the concepts about dinosaurs that characters in the film considered "out there" -- namely, that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and that they were probably warm-blooded -- are pretty much the mainstream view today.
Why not create a tag called "grid" that acts like a table, but is designed for page layout? Most graphic designers use grids, and it would really help web design as a whole if something like that existed for us.
Because this would make sense, and help web designers/developers actually do what they've been doing all along. Its just the people in the business of writing the spec, have something different envisioned.
Not really. If it is functionally equivalent to TABLE, then it's redundant markup (like the old MENU and DIR list types, which were in practice equivalent to UL). It'll also have exactly the same shortcomings that table-based layouts have (particularly: mixing presentation in your structure, and limits on scalability, particularly going down to small devices like phones). The only thing that will distinguish it from TABLE is that parsers will know not to interpret it as tabular data. You may as well add a "NOTDATA" attribute to TABLE.
The only designers it will benefit are those who follow the "don't use tables" mantra as received wisdom, rather than understanding the reasons behind it. It's just like people who try to use CSS to imitate a table layout in order to present actual tables, because they've heard "tables are bad, use CSS instead" instead of "tables as layout lead to a number of problems with can be avoided by using CSS instead"
HTML 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. are different revisions of the specification. New capabilities are added (IMG wasn't in the original version), some are changed (P used to be a double-line-break, but now it's a container with a top and bottom margin), other little-used features are removed (have you seen an ISINDEX tag lately? how about a MENU list?).
XHTML 1.0 is essentially HTML 4 translated into XML. Later versions of XHTML have diverged.
How about a way of having content reflow from one column to another when a window is resized? Page layout programs have done this for 20+ years, so shouldn't it be possible for a web page and a browser today?
The CSS3 multi-column module was designed for exactly that purpose. It's available in experimental form in current Mozilla-based browsers (Firefox, Seamonkey, Camino, etc.), and according to that page, it's available in nightly builds of Webkit, which will eventually become a future version of Safari. (Since the spec isn't final, the rules use -moz and -webkit prefixes, so that if the spec changes they won't have to change the official rule's behavior.) No word from Opera, though there are reportedly a bunch of CSS3 features in store for the next major update, and of course, who knows how long before we'll see it in IE.
1. Extensions that bug Computerworld. 2. Extensions that the authors don't see a need for.
#1 is a case of looking out for... well, number one.
#2 is a case where they've decided that, because they don't have a use for it, no one has a use for it. It's a common bias, one which crops up all the time in internet discussions (yes, even here) on software, TV, movies, books -- just about anything.
Something may be aimed at a different target audience. It may be a waste of my time. But it doesn't mean it's a waste of everyone's time, because someone else may get something different out of it than I do.
And yet, curiously, despite falling over herself to draw our attention to and debunk every other claim, PJ declines to deny this one, even when asked directly about it.
Perhaps because it's a legal document, filed about her specifically?
It's one thing to refute claims made about you in the media, or claims made in court about someone else. But claims made about you in a court of law? Can you blame her for not wanting to make statements on the subject without legal representation?
Slashdot Mirror
Once I found out someone had turned Jekyll and Hyde into a musical (early 1990s), I figured anything was fair game.
Of course, if the reason for the low presence of non-IE visitors is that it doesn't work right in those browsers, so those people look at the site once, then leave for a competitor, then the potential benefit of making the site more compatible is greater than the stats would imply.
As I understand it, IETab simply embeds Internet Explorer inside the Firefox window and allows the chrome to control it. As far as the website can tell, IETab is IE.
What's (somewhat) progressive about MovieLink isn't that they're allowing IETab... but that they're recommending it.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. Cross-site scripting does rely on client-side processing (you can inject it without CS, but the end user has to run it). But you're right about the other two. SQL injection and attacks via invalid server input don't even require a browser -- you could attack a vulnerable server with telnet if you wanted, no matter how safe the users' browsers are.
Luke, you're going to find that many of the designs we cling to depend greatly on our interpretation of the CSS specification.
Such an outcome is only logical, after all. If it's over, the fat lady must have sung.
Microsoft is even offering free images for Virtual PC, preloaded with IE6 and IE7. The annoying thing is that they're time limited, expiring in August. I think they're being entirely too optimistic about the upgrade rate, especially considering all the computers that can't upgrade to IE7 for technical or policy reasons.
Not to mention Mindows vs. Lac, Binux vs. LSD, and Slashdig vs. Dott.
They were there as a major developer of web applications. They've also worked closely with Mozilla (at one point they were employing several developers specifically to work on Firefox, and they might still be), and were there to talk about the future of webapps.
Blame the editors. I submitted a couple of links, including another article on ComputerWorld which went into the "browser war" comments in a bit more detail:
(For the record, I found the story via Opera Watch)
This is also why I try never to go anywhere near the post office on April 12-15 (or 16, on years like this one). With very few exceptions, whatever it is can wait until the crowds of "postmarked on April 15" tax filers people are done.
Not unlike Quicktime and iTunes. Apple ported Quicktime to Windows to ensure dominance over video players. It didn't work, but they did the same with iTunes when it became clear that there was a market for iPods among Windows users. However, you'll note that after a decade, we still have no official Quicktime for Linux. And Apple shows no signs of interest in porting iTunes to Linux either.
(Personally, I can take or leave iTunes itself, but it would be nice to have a Linux client which could access iTunes collections over the network. Even if it can only access non-DRMed files, most of what we have is just ripped from our CD collection. I really don't feel like ripping them all again, or exporting the entire collection and trying to keep the copy in sync.)
...though it may be to some people.
Anonymous user stats are always going to be an estimate. Cookies aren't reliable, because people clear them. IP addresses aren't reliable, because some are dynamically generated, some are shared, and people move around.
You can only really know how many users you have if (a) they're registered and (b) they visit the site while logged in. (And even then, people could be sharing accounts -- bugmenot, anyone?)
Personally, I don't think this is a problem, as long as you're willing to look at the estimates for what they are and not treat them as if they were precise.
Hmm... how long before someone claims that Firefox's/Opera's/Safari's stats are inflated because they make it easier to wipe cookies than IE?
Not according to this article. They did have a lawyer, who managed to get him released to their custody before charges were dropped. It's not clear why it took 12 days to do it, but they didn't believe the principal over their son.
The family's lawyer is quoted a number of times in the article as well.
I was once looking for information on Nigerian scams, a.k.a. 419 scams, a.k.a. advance fee fraud scams. And, I kid you not, among the ads on the Google results page for "nigerian scam" was an ad that read:
I found the same type of ad for "419 scam," then did some random searches, and at the time, eBay seemed to have picked up a whole bunch of two-word phrases.
Perhaps, but they make a big point early in the movie to explain it to some people who aren't entirely convinced.
There's a group of spectators at the dig site, Dr. Grant makes some remark about birds being related to the velociraptor skeleton they're looking at, and the spectators laugh. He then proceeds to point out all the similarities. It's right before the part where he scared the kid with his story about velociraptor hunting practices.
(Yes, it's mentioned in the article.)
I rewatched it a few months ago, and found it interesting that some of the concepts about dinosaurs that characters in the film considered "out there" -- namely, that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and that they were probably warm-blooded -- are pretty much the mainstream view today.
Not really. If it is functionally equivalent to TABLE, then it's redundant markup (like the old MENU and DIR list types, which were in practice equivalent to UL). It'll also have exactly the same shortcomings that table-based layouts have (particularly: mixing presentation in your structure, and limits on scalability, particularly going down to small devices like phones). The only thing that will distinguish it from TABLE is that parsers will know not to interpret it as tabular data. You may as well add a "NOTDATA" attribute to TABLE.
The only designers it will benefit are those who follow the "don't use tables" mantra as received wisdom, rather than understanding the reasons behind it. It's just like people who try to use CSS to imitate a table layout in order to present actual tables, because they've heard "tables are bad, use CSS instead" instead of "tables as layout lead to a number of problems with can be avoided by using CSS instead"
You may appreciate this post: Kill IE6 to Let CSS3 Live.
HTML 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. are different revisions of the specification. New capabilities are added (IMG wasn't in the original version), some are changed (P used to be a double-line-break, but now it's a container with a top and bottom margin), other little-used features are removed (have you seen an ISINDEX tag lately? how about a MENU list?).
XHTML 1.0 is essentially HTML 4 translated into XML. Later versions of XHTML have diverged.
The CSS3 multi-column module was designed for exactly that purpose. It's available in experimental form in current Mozilla-based browsers (Firefox, Seamonkey, Camino, etc.), and according to that page, it's available in nightly builds of Webkit, which will eventually become a future version of Safari. (Since the spec isn't final, the rules use -moz and -webkit prefixes, so that if the spec changes they won't have to change the official rule's behavior.) No word from Opera, though there are reportedly a bunch of CSS3 features in store for the next major update, and of course, who knows how long before we'll see it in IE.
Remember: HTML for structure, CSS for layout.
Hazards of sans-serif fonts at small pitches, I guess.
The list consists of two types of extensions:
1. Extensions that bug Computerworld.
2. Extensions that the authors don't see a need for.
#1 is a case of looking out for... well, number one.
#2 is a case where they've decided that, because they don't have a use for it, no one has a use for it. It's a common bias, one which crops up all the time in internet discussions (yes, even here) on software, TV, movies, books -- just about anything.
Something may be aimed at a different target audience. It may be a waste of my time. But it doesn't mean it's a waste of everyone's time, because someone else may get something different out of it than I do.
Perhaps because it's a legal document, filed about her specifically?
It's one thing to refute claims made about you in the media, or claims made in court about someone else. But claims made about you in a court of law? Can you blame her for not wanting to make statements on the subject without legal representation?
So, an open discussion of issues with publicly-accessible open-source development is a bad thing?
Sorry, I think I missed that memo. I'll be sure to use the new cover sheet next time.